









', s A * 









































/- * 3 N 0 \ V 

c> v/ * ' 0 / 

■i' 





\V ° v/ ® 5 \»* » «,■» '-s- 

«rV * „v 

A '3, .0’ S'* 

/ v*'’’s \, ,0* t*’“« <* 

o (V 





a> </» 

#■ \ ■ 

'P A ,yy, 1 


~r> v o 

* ■* 

* W^SN * 












- ^ .'^ 2 %.' ^ - ^-V •- • ^ v - 1 


\ 


> </> 






A 
A 






'•?/. y O * ». ^ A' y^ ** t A, S. '\ O y 0 » V 

^ W^llWN 

(V 















y * .’'"A’ A 

° ilPlSf'' ^ >* - 

S' 








\r> vV 

</> V 




,v 


cA» * <• S’ -A .O. 

vV . a 1 • * Y b. ° 0^ c° v c ♦ A 























THE 


NORTHWARD MOVEMENT 


OF THE 


COLORED POPULATION 


A STATISTICAL STUDY 


BY 

FREDERICK J. BROWN 


a 4 


CUSHING 8c CO. 



Copyright, 1897, by Frederick J. Brown 


press OF 

THE FRIEDENWADD CO- 
BALTIMORE 





THE NORTHWARD MOVEMENT OF THE 
COLORED POPULATION. 


In which direction does the colored population of this 
-country show a tendency to move—-northwards or south¬ 
wards? This is an important question, and the answer to 
it which has been given by some statisticians will be found, 
after careful study of the tenth and eleventh censuses, 
not to be the correct one. 

There is an interesting pamphlet by Mr. Henry Gannett, 
of the United States Geological Survey, on “ Statistics of 
the Negroes in the United States ”—it appeared in 1894 
under the auspices of the Trustees of the John F. Slater 
Fund, and is for sale by The Friedenwald Company, Bal¬ 
timore—which contains much valuable information as to 
the growth, diffusion, health, etc., of the colored popula¬ 
tion, and is illustrated by carefully prepared maps and 
diagrams. There is, however, one conclusion, or set of 
conclusions, reached by the author, which a careful study 
of the figures will, I submit, show to be erroneous. 

On page 13 he says, “ The movement of these people 
from the south into the north has been inconsiderable,” 
and, on page 20, “ All this indicates in the most unmistak¬ 
able terms a general southward migration of this race,” 
and, on page 28, “ They are moving southward from the 
border states into those of the sonth Atlantic and the 
Gulf.” 

In this view Mr. Gannett has to support him the author¬ 
ity of Mr. Robert P. Porter, late Superintendent of Census, 



4 


who, in Census Bulletin No. 48, issued April 7, 1891, 
says that “ during the last decade there becomes percepti¬ 
ble a southward movement of the colored element from 
the border states into those bordering on the Gulf, particu¬ 
larly into Mississippi and Arkansas, where they have in¬ 
creased proportionately to the white. * * There is, 

therefore, a perceptible tendency southward of the colored 
people, which, while by no means powerful, has resulted 
in drawing a notable proportion of that element from the 
border states/* etc. 

In the eleventh census, 1890, there is a very interesting 
opening essay, “ Progress of the Nation/ 7 by Bobert P. 
Porter, Henry Gannett, and William C. Hunt, ’which 
speaks of the southward movement of the race, but says 
that its extent and importance have been exaggerated.* 

Mr. James Bryce, in the third edition of his “ Ameri¬ 
can Commonwealth/ 7 Yol. II, page 492, says': “ It is 
clear that the negro centre of population is more and more 
shifting southward, and that the African is leaving the 
colder, higher and drier lands for regions more resembling 
his ancient seat in the Old World/ 7 and on page 518 he 
predicts that “ he will more and more draw southwards 

* There are two volumes issued from the Census Office so 
nearly alike in their titles and lettering on the back, and they 
can be so easily confused, that I here mention both of them 
particularly. The first one, which was printed in 1892 and pub¬ 
lished in 1894, is backed “House Miscellaneous Documents, 1st 
Sess., 52d Cong., 1891-92, Vol. 50, Part 3 . . . Compendium of 
the Eleventh Census, 1890. Part I—Population.” The second, 
issued in 1895, is exactly the same as to the first portion of 
its backing down to “ Part 3,” where it reads “ Part 8,” and the 
latter portion proceeds: “. . . Eleventh Census of the United 
States, 1890. Population—Part I.” The first mentioned volume 
contains an Introduction (pp. ix-xxxiii) by Robert P. Porter, 
Superintendent of Census, and also an essay, “ Progress of the 
Nation” (pp. xxxv-cxl), also (apparently) by him. The second 
contains a longer opening essay (pp. ix-ccxiii), “Progress of the 
Nation, 1790-1890,” by Robert P. Porter, Henry Gannett, and 
William C. Hunt. References herein below to “ Eleventh Cen¬ 
sus ” will mean the second of these volumes. 


5 


into the lower and hotter regions along the coasts of the 
Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico.” 

Gen. Francis A. Walker, in an instructive article in the 
“ Forum” of July, 1891, “ The Colored Race in the 
United States,” writes as follows (page 507): “ I entertain 
a strong conviction * * that this element will be more 

and more drained off from the higher and colder lands 
into the low, hot regions bordering the Gulf of Mexico.” 
He adds, very forcibly: “ That in these regions the negro 
finds his most favorable habitat and environment does not 
require physiological proof. He is here, in the highest sense, 
at home. The malarial diseases, so destructive to Europeans 
in this climate and on this soil, have little power over 
him. At the same time the industrial raison d'etre of 
the negro is here found at its maximum,” etc. And 
at page 508 the writer expresses an expectation that “ the 
relative decline of the colored population throughout the 
United States except in the cotton belt, will be due partly 
to the more rapid growth of the white element; partly to 
migration southward from Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, 
Tennessee, and Horth Carolina, under urgent calls for labor 
in the cotton fields * * partly to the high rate of 

mortality prevailing among negroes in northern latitudes 
and even in southern cities.” It is perhaps fair to add 
that General Walker’s article was written when the census 
bulletins (1890) showing the colored population in the 
North , had not yet appeared. 

There are some evidences of a southward—or, more 
properly speaking, southwestward—movement from Horth 
Carolina, and it is very plain that there has been an exten¬ 
sive westvmrd migration from that State and from others. 
But the view that the colored element, is moving from the 
border States (meaning—as I assume two of the writers 
above quoted mean—Delaware, Maryland, the Virginias, 
Kentucky and Missouri), southwards into the Gulf States, 
or southwards at all, is, I submit, demonstrably erroneous. 


6 


The figures will be found to prove, on the contrary, that 
the colored population of those States moves northwards. 
Moreover, if we add North Carolina and Tennessee to the 
States just mentioned, we shall find that from the entire 
group so constituted the movement of that population is 
much more northwards than southwards. 

The eleventh census shows that of the 7,470,040 of 
colored population (that is to say population of African 
descent) in 1890, for the whole country, 6,889,152 were 
found in the South, that is to say in the old slave States, 
including the District of Columbia, and 580,888 in the 
North, meaning thereby all the other States and the Terri¬ 
tories. Geographically, this division into two groups is 
nearly enough correct, and it separates the States also ac¬ 
cording to another most important criterion—besides the 
recent existence of slavery—that is to say, it groups 
together all those States where the colored population is 
found in large numbers—or at least in not very small 
numbers—relatively to the white population. In the 
South they formed 30.7 per cent, of the whole population, 
ranging from 60 per cent, in South Carolina to 4.3 per 
cent, in West Virginia; in the North only 1.45 per cent. 
Since 1880 their increase has been 889,247 for the whole 
country, or at the rate of 13.5 per cent., and of this in¬ 
crease 99,348 was in the North, or at the rate of 20.6 per 
cent., and 789,899 in the South, or at the rate of 13 per 
cent. 

There can be no doubt that these apparent rates of in¬ 
crease for the two sections are not the true rates of natural 
increase. There can be no doubt that at the North, taken 
altogether, the colored population grows very little through 
natural increase, but almost entirely through immigration 
from the South, and by the same token we must make 
a considerable allowance for that stream of emigration to 
get at the true rate of natural increase among the southern 
negroes. 


lliat the apparent increase of the northern negroes is 
really due to immigration is shown almost conclusively by 
an examination of the colored population of the South and 
of the growth of that population in sections , or belts, 
dividing the Southern States into three groups, tak¬ 
ing Delaware, Maryland, the District of Columbia, the two 
Virginias, Kentucky and Missouri as one group, which we 
may call— using a nomenclature which was familiar thirty- 
six years ago—the Border States, taking North Carolina 
and Tennessee together as a class by themselves, and group¬ 
ing the rest of the States together as the Far South.* 

The colored population in these three sections in 1880 
and in 1890 was as follows: 

Border States. N. C. & Tenn. Far South. 


1890 . 1,405,998 991,696 4,491,458 

1880 . 1,370,571 934,428 3,794,254 

Increase . . . 35,427 57,268 697,204 


And, without giving the figures for the white popula¬ 
tion in these three groups of States for either census year, 
it will be enough to say that the colored population in 1880 

* The reader may feel inclined to question here whether a more 
satisfactory classification might not be made by taking Arkansas 
out of the “ Far South ” group and adding it to North Carolina 
and Tennessee, so making of those three States a “ Middle Belt ” 
group. Such an arrangement might be more gratifying to one’s 
geographical sense—it would look well on the map—and, in fact, 
I adopted that classification in a discussion of this subject which 
appeared as an editorial in the New York Times on September 
19th, 1892. But most of the colored population of Arkansas is 
in the southern half of the State, south of the southern boundary 
of Tennessee, so that the classification with the larger group is 
geographically correct enough, and besides, in the density of the 
distribution of that population in some parts, and its large pre¬ 
ponderance over the white population in the river counties, this 
State presents phases so like those in Louisiana, Mississippi and 
other States of the far South that it seems, on the whole, reason¬ 
able to include it in the same group with them. 







8 


was in the Far South about 44.5 per cent.; in North Caro¬ 
lina and Tennessee, 31 per cent., and in the Border States, 
19 per cent., respectively of the whole population of those 
regions. We have, then, in the region furthest south, 
where the colored population was greatest in actual numbers 
and greatest relatively, the largest rate of increase, 18.4 
per cent.; in the next most southerly region, where they 
were next most numerous relatively, the next largest rate 
of increase, 6.1 per cent.; and in the Border States, where 
they were least numerous relatively, the very small rate of 
increase, per cent.* The white population meantime 
increased in the Border States nearly 20 per cent., in North 
Carolina and Tennessee, 19 per cent., in the Far South 30 
per cent. Now it is evident that in the Far South the 
climate and the conditions, taken together, are, of all those 
which the country affords, the best suited for the negro’s 
development. In North Carolina and Tennessee the cli¬ 
mate is colder in winter and therefore not quite so well 
suited to his development, and the conditions there are 
slightly less favorable in the fact that through a good part 
of those two States the colored population is rather thinly 
disposed and is small relatively to the white. We should 
expect a somewhat smaller rate of increase, although we 
should not have expected to see the very sudden drop from 
18.4 to 6.1 per cent., as above shown. The explanation of 
this will be given later. In the Border States the climate 
is considerably cooler, and is less good, though still fairly 
good, for the development of that race, but the conditions 
are appreciably less favorable, first, because the colored 
* population is generally much smaller relatively to the 

* This last group of States shows a loss during the decade if 
we exclude the colored population of all cities which in 1890 
had more than 8000 inhabitants. That population in such cities 
increased from 278,400 to 351,400, say 73,000. Deducting this 
urban population, these States together decreased at the rate 
of 3.6 per cent., all losing in rural (or other than urban) popula- 
tion except West Virginia. 


9 


white, is in most places less dense absolutely—in many 
extensive districts is very sparse—and, secondly and prin- 
eipally, because it is to a much larger extent an urban 
population (as in Baltimore, Washington, Richmond, 
Louisville, and St. Louis). We should naturally, then, 
expect to see an appreciable falling off in the rate of in¬ 
crease as compared with North Carolina and Tennessee. 
But we certainly should not have expected to see a sudden 
and remarkable rise from 2.6 to 20.6 per cent, when we 
cross over into the North from the southern Border States, 
In the North the negroes are but one in seventy of the 
total population, the only place where they are found in 
large numbers relatively is the extreme southern end of 
Illinois (where in three counties they form about 22 per 
cent, of the population); the only other places where they 
are found close together in large numbers absolutely, are 
towns and cities where, to a great extent, their occupa¬ 
tions—domestic service and the like—and their modes of 
life, are by no means those which conduce to a large 
increase. Further, the colored people in the North are 
appreciably a more prosperous, a better educated, a more 
ambitious class than the average southern negroes, and 
for those reasons, if for no others, would show a slower 
rate of increase. In short, both in climate and in all im¬ 
portant conditions, the negroes at the North are very dif¬ 
ferently situated from those in the South, and at the same 
time the situation of the border-state negroes is in every 
way less unlike theirs than is the situation of the negroes 
further south. If the rate of increase of the northern 
colored population, 20.6 per cent., the highest of all, is a 
natural rate of increase, then we should look to find the 
next highest rate in the Border States, the next in North 
Carolina and Tennessee, and the lowest in the Far South. 
But we find precisely the opposite of this. From a general 
view of the rates of increase in the different parts of the 
.South, diminishing in the more northerly regions, it would 


10 


seem almost certain that the very sudden drop in the rate 
of increase of the colored population in the Border States, 
as compared with the States further south, is to be ac¬ 
counted for by emigration to the North. It would seem 
almost certain that the colored loss in Kentucky and the 
considerable gain in Indiana, the colored loss in the north¬ 
ern tier of counties in Maryland, and the large gain in 
Pennsylvania, is to be explained by a northward drift of 
the colored population, and that such must also be the 
explanation of their rapid growth in almost all the northern 
cities of any considerable size, especially in Pennsylvania, 
, Ohio, Indiana and Kansas. It would seem to be possible 
that the colored population at the North may, without the 
reinforcement from the South, be actually decreasing in 
numbers, but the supposition that it remains stationary or 
nearly so would comport very well with the figures supplied 
by the natural rate, or rates, of colored increase reason¬ 
ably to be looked for in North Carolina and Tennessee, 
and in the southern Border States, expecting, as we should 
expect, that from the very high rate in the Par South there 
would be considerable but not such very sudden diminu¬ 
tions as we go northwards. 

We can now see that a readjustment will probably have 
to be made of the figures showing the percentage of increase 
of the southern negroes as a whole. The total gain of the 
whole country in the ten years, 889,247, appeared to show 
a rate of increase for the whole country of 13.5 per cent., 
but inasmuch as the colored population of the North (481,- 
540 in 1880) was probably increasing very little except 
through immigration, this really meant an increase, not 
of 13.5 per cent, upon a total of 6,580,793, but of some¬ 
where about 14.6 per cent, upon the total of 6,099,253, 
which was the colored population of the South in 1880. 
The colored increase in the eight States of the Par South 
was, as we have seen, 697,204, or at the rate of 18.4 
per cent., which we may take, for the present and pro- 


11 


visionally, to represent somewhere about the present 
natural rate of increase for that race in that region. 
The percentage of increase was not affected greatly 
by emigration or immigration; how much and from and 
to what directions we shall enquire later. There is a 
remainder of increase of 192,000 to be supplied, and this 
could be supplied by supposing for North Carolina and 
Tennessee and for the Border States the rates of natural 
increase of 12 and 6 per cent, respectively, or 13 and 5 
per cent, respectively, rates which seem reasonable in them¬ 
selves, and which would fit in with the supposed fact of a 
stationary or nearly stationary population at the North— 
a supposition wihch begins to seem more and more reason¬ 
able. 

But I must assume that some readers may not be satis¬ 
fied with the conclusiveness of arguments based upon prob¬ 
able rates of increase, or upon the reasonableness or proba¬ 
bility of diminishing rates in more northerly latitudes. 
They may ask if there is any direct proof of a movement 
from the southern States into the northern during the last 
decade. There is such proof, and it is quite conclusive, 
and there is also conclusive proof of a northward move¬ 
ment, a westward movement, and, to some slight extent, a 
southward movement within the southern States—from 
one southern State to another. 

This proof is found—I should explain for the benefit of 
those who have not made a study of the subject—in exam¬ 
ination and comparison of two tables in the last two cen¬ 
suses,—Table No. 28, on pages 576-579 of the Eleventh 
Census, which gives “ Colored Population Distributed 
According to State or Territory of Birth, by States and 
Territories,” and the corresponding Table No. XXIX, 
pages 476-481, in the Compendium of the Tenth Census. 

Important results can be obtained by careful comparison 
of these tables, but the use of them is attended with some 
difficulty. Nearly all of the colored persons who went 



12 


from one southern State to another before 1861—or 
1865—did not move as free agents, but were taken to their 
new abode as slaves, and a great many of these are still 
living, and appear in the censuses in numbers which make 
them an obscuring factor of a serious kind, and in some 
instances the large forced migrations of years ago from one 
State to some other State disguise effectually all evidences of 
later and much smaller voluntary migration between ithose 
two States. But in most instances we can make a reason¬ 
able allowance with some degree of confidence for this 
obscuring factor or unknown quantity—which sometimes is 
evidently but a very small quantity—and of course we are 
not troubled by it at all when we compare these tables to get 
the movement of colored population to and from the 
northern States. When we have compared these tables 
for the two census years we find that it is not a matter of 
probability, but of absolute certainty , that there has been 
during the decade an extensive movement into the north¬ 
ern from the southern States. 

In presenting the following estimates of figures, I have 
assumed that the facts which the reader will be most con¬ 
cerned with are, first, percentages of natural increase in 
large sections grouped (in the main) according to latitudes; 
second, evidences of northward or southward migrations 
to or from any section, and that east-and-west movements 
are of much less general interest; third, some explanation 
as to why the colored population of North Carolina (and 
in a measure Tennessee) shows so very much less growth 
than might have been expected,—in other words, some 
estimate of the movement away from those two States; 
also, inasmuch as Arkansas, Florida and Texas have in¬ 
creased a good deal faster than the average, some estimate 
of the movement into those States. In stating the figures 
which I give for the migrations, and taking up sections 
and States in turn, each total will generally be set down 


13 


twice in two different connections, but this repetition seems 
almost unavoidable. 

In many cases, but not always, there was a perceptible 
movement in two opposite directions, for instance from 
Tennessee into Arkansas, and into Tennessee from Arkan¬ 
sas, and the balance —the gain or loss as the case may be—• 
is what I have tried to set down. Very small balances of 
migration from one southern State to another are ignored, 
and statement by even thousands or five-hundreds is 
preferred, at some slight sacrifice of accuracy. 

As to particular sections, the movements of colored pop¬ 
ulation and balances of gain or loss, would seem to be 
somewhat as follows: 

THE BORDER STATES. 

They send no balance to the Far South and receive 
none, except that Missouri gains 500 and Virginia 500 from 
those States, while Kentucky loses 500 to Arkansas. They 
lose to the North about 63,300. They gain from North Caro- / 
lina 7,300, Virginia gaining 6,000, the other Border States 

1.300. From Tennessee Kentucky gains 1,700 and Mis¬ 
souri gains 1,500. In detail, they lose (North) as follows: 
Virginia, 33,500; Kentucky, 13,800; Maryland, 7,500; 
the rest, 8,500. Net loss of Border States, all directions, 

52.300. Colored population in 1880 was 1,370,571, and 
actual gain by census of 1890 was 35,427, which, added 
to total net loss, would indicate a natural rate of increase 
of 6.4 per cent. Virginia loses to other Border States as 
follows: To Delaware, 500; Maryland, 5,000; District 
of Columbia, 8,000; West Virginia, 5,000. Virginia’s 
net loss in all directions, 45,500. Colored population of 
this State in 1880 was 631,616, and actual gain by census 
of 1890 was 3,822. This, added to total net loss, would 
indicate a natural rate of increase of 7.8 per cent., while 
the rest of this group, excluding Virginia, would show a 
rate of 5.2 per cent. 


14 


NORTH CAROLINA. 

Loses to the North 4,900. Loses to Border States as 
above mentioned, 7,300. Gains 2,000 from South Caro¬ 
lina. Loses to Georgia 9,000; to Arkansas, 7,000; to Mis¬ 
sissippi, 5,500; to Louisiana, 5,500; to Texas, 2,000; to 
Florida, 600. Net losses in all directions, 39,800. 
Colored population in 1880 was 531,277, and actual gain 
by census was 29,741. This, added to total net loss, would 
indicate a rate of natural increase of \?>.\ per cent. 

TENNESSEE. 

Loses to the North 7,100; loses to Kentucky, 1,700, 
and to Missouri, 1,500, as above mentioned. Loses to 
Arkansas, 8,500; to Texas, 1,000. Gains from Georgia, 
Alabama and Mississippi, 9,500. Net loss in all directions, 
10,300. Colored population in 1880 was 403,151, and 
actual gain by census was 27,527. This, added to total 
net loss, would indicate a natural rate of increase of 9.4 
per cent. 


THE FAR SOUTH. 

These States lose to the Border States as mentioned, 500. 
They lose to the North, 6,300; lose to North Carolina (from 
South Carolina), 2,000; to Tennessee (from Georgia, Ala¬ 
bama and Mississippi), 9,500. Gain (Georgia, Florida, 
Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas and Arkansas) from North 
Carolina, 29,600; gain (Arkansas and Texas) from Tenn¬ 
essee, 9,500. Kecapitulating;—net gain from Tennessee 
and North Carolina together, 27,600; net losses to Border 
States and North together, 6,800; net gain from all direc¬ 
tions, 20,800. The colored population in 1880 was 
3,794,254, and actual gain by census was 697,204, which, 
allowing for gain by immigration, shows a natural rate of 
increase of 17.8 per cent. It would seem altogether rea¬ 
sonable and according to one’s expectations if this rate of 


15 


increase is highest in the most southern parts of this sec¬ 
tion, hut if that he the fact it is less apparent than is this 
other fact which we shall find brought out very strikingly 
by the figures, that the rate is muck the highest where the 
negro has moved into a new country. 

Arkansas .—Gains from Mississippi, 13,000; from Ten¬ 
nessee, 8,500; South Carolina, 8,000; North Carolina, 
7,000; Alabama, 3,500; Georgia, 3,000; Louisiana, 3,000; 
Texas, 800; other States, 1,000, including 300 from the 
North; in all, 47,800. Census of 1880 gives 210,666, 
and actual gain-by 1890 was 98,336, which would indi¬ 
cate a natural rate of increase of 24 per cent. 

Texas. —Gains from North Carolina, 2,000; Alabama, 
1,300; Tennessee, 1,000; Louisiana, only 800; other 
States, 1,100. Loses to Arkansas, 800; to the North, 
400. Net gain, 5,000, which is less than one would ex¬ 
pect. Census of 1880 gives 393,384, and actual gain by 
1890, 94,787, which would indicate a natural rate of 
increase of 22.6 per cent. The colored population is dis¬ 
tributed pretty liberally throughout the eastern part of 
the State north of latitude 28° 30'. South of that lati¬ 
tude it is not large. 

Florida.— Gains from Georgia, 3,000; Alabama, 2,500; 
South Carolina, 1,400; other States, 1,000; in all, 7,900. 
Census of 1880 gives 126,690, and actual gain by 1890, 
39,490, which would indicate a natural rate of increase of 
neai^y 25 per cent. 


THE NORTH. 

Gains, as above mentioned, from the Border States, 
63,300; from Tennessee and North Carolina, 12,000; from 
the Far South, 6,300; in all, 81,600. Census of 1880 
gives 481,540, and actual gain by 1890, 99,348, which 
would indicate an increase (over and above immigration) 
of 17,748, and a natural rate of increase of 3.7 per cent. 


16 


The reader may now ask on what theory the above cal¬ 
culations are made, and, first , what death-rate have I sup¬ 
posed to prevail among the southern-born colored popula¬ 
tion living in 1880 in the northern States. The average 
death-rate among the whole colored population at the 
North was in 1890 about 22 yearly in 1,000, and I have 
adopted 20 per cent, in ten years as the supposed death- 
rate among the southern-born negroes living there at the 
taking of the census of 1880. In other words I have 
deducted one-fifth from their number in the North then, 
and have subtracted the remainder from their number 
there in 1890, and the difference shows the number who 
came in during the decade. Considerations—based on 
supposed ages, etc.—might no doubt be advanced to show 
that the southern-born negroes living at the North in 1880 
were perhaps better lives than that, from an insurer’s point 
of view, and on the contrary, it might be argued that perhaps 
their lives were less good. To meet the first view I may say 
that if we suppose the death-rate among them was as low 
as 16§ per cent, in ten years, so that one-sixth would be 
the proper proportion to deduct before subtracting, then 
the difference in the final result would be this: the North 
would have received from the whole South during the 
decade a balance of about 76,000, instead of 81,600. This 
difference of 5,600 would result in showing that the rate 
of natural increase in the North during the decade was 
not 3.7 but 4.8 per cent. It would also result, of course, 
in lowering such rate of increase as already ascertained for 
the Border States. It w T ould be found that such rate for 
those States (excluding Virginia) which by the figures 
hitherto adopted was 5.2 per cent., would now be lowered 
to 4.8 per cent., the same as the rate for the whole North. 
This result would seem in itself, in my opinion, unreason¬ 
able. It is, I think, from every point of view extremely 
improbable and inconsistent with ascertained facts, that the 
rate of natural increase for the colored population at the 


17 


^7orth—so largely urban, and in an unfavorable climate— 
can be as high as for that population in the Border States 
(other than Virginia) where it is more rural and where the 
climate is milder. In my judgment 20 per cent, is the 
smallest amount that we can reasonably deduct from the 
southern-born negroes in the North in 1880 to get the 
number of survivors of that class in 1890. In other words, 
I submit that it is not unlikely that the natural increase 
for the North during the decade was in reality somewhat 
less, but perhaps not much less, than the 17,748 indicated 
as a result on page 15. 

As to the very small northern-born colored population 
living in the South in 1880, I have supposed the same 
death-rate, 20 per cent, in ten years, to prevail, and if it 
be remembered that this is largely an urban population, 
this may seem near enough right. If a smaller rate, say 
16§ per cent, in ten years, were supposed, it would make 
very little difference in results as figured, and such 
difference would only increase (very slightly) the balance 
supposed to have moved northwards. 

That this balance was a large one the census figures 
show beyond all dispute. While I do not pretend to have 
been able to state the amount of it with entire accuracy, I 
believe that my estimates may not be far wrong. 

That the reader may have the opportunity of verifying 
these results, and of figuring out, if he chooses, some other 
than the number which I have estimated as a probable 
one for the balance of immigration from the South, I give 
here a summary of the totals obtained from an examina¬ 
tion of the two tables above mentioned. The figures in 
the first two columns are the numbers of the colored popu¬ 
lation born in each State or group of States mentioned, 
living in the North in the two census years respectively, 
and in the third and fourth columns are found the numbers 
of that population living in those States or groups in those 
years, born in the North. 


18 


1880. 1890. 1880 * 1890 * 

Virginia . 44,824 69,664 453 699 

Other Border States. 85,538 103,544 6,725 $10,660 

N. C. and Tenn. 25,863 33,007 1,017 1,155 

Far South. 24,361 27,728 $5,844 6,616 


180,586 233,943 14,039 19,130 

It is to be noted that in addition to the large number of 
southern-born colored persons shown “ on the face of the 
returns ” to be living at the North, it is probable that there 
were others who were born in the South but whom the 
census-takers put down at a venture as born in the State 
where they were enumerated. 

As to the colored population living in the South in 1880 
born in some other southern State than that of their then 
residence, it would be a mistake to select some uniform 
death-rate and apply it unvaryingly in each case. When¬ 
ever it is certain that there was formerly an extensive 
movement of slaves from one State to another, out of all 
proportion to the later voluntary movement from the first 
State to the second, then it must follow, from the rather 
advanced average age of the colored natives of the first 
State living in the second in 1880, that the death-rate 
among them during the ensuing decade must have been 
a high one. It will be seen that the question of probable 

* From these two columns I have omitted the figures given in 
both censuses for “ born in Wisconsin,” which are (especially in 
the earlier census) so utterly erroneous that they must be rejected. 
The enumerators or compilers evidently got the abbreviations for 
Wisconsin and Mississippi confused. The true number of colored 
persons born in the former State living in the South would of 
course be extremely small. 

t From this total is omitted an error of 100 for “ born in Michi¬ 
gan ” in one Southern State. Probably also a mistake for 
Mississippi. 

t From this total is omitted an error of 135 living in District 
of Columbia, returned as born in Washington State, which doubt¬ 
less should be Washington. D. C. 









19 


death-rates during the decade, of southern negroes born 
in some other southern State was a complicated one and 
had to be dealt with somewhat arbitrarily. It would 
require much space, and would prove very wearisome to 
the reader if I were to set forth in each case—and give 
my reasons for choosing—the f raction (based on the prob¬ 
able death-rate) which was decided on as a fairly reason¬ 
able one to be deducted from each 1880 population born 
in one State living in another, and I shall not do so.* 

That there was an extensive movement in one direction 
or another the figures often show beyond all question, but 
exactly how extensive is of course always open to some 
doubt. If we take, for instance, the two census tables 
(mentioned ante p. 11), and examine the figures, we can 
have no doubt whatever that there was a large balance of 
migration from North Carolina into Virginia, and a 
smaller one into Maryland, the District of Columbia and 
West Virginia; that Tennessee lost heavily.to Arkansas, 
and less, but certainly, to Kentucky. But whether those 
balances were about what I have estimated is, of course, 
open to question. And so as to other estimates. I give 
them as approximations which I believe to be not far 
wrong. 

I may be allowed to say, however, that I have not forced 
the results of calculations for the to-and-fro movements so 
as to meet my preconceived opinion that there was in fact 
an extensive northward drift. Sometimes—especially in the 
extent and directions of the emigration from North Caro¬ 
lina—the results came out otherwise than according to my 
expectations. 

* As to the normal death-rate among the Southern negroes, it 
is, according to the census returns, about 17 per 1,000 in some 
States and in others a good deal less. We should bear in mind, 
however, that the registration of their deaths was doubtless 
imperfect, and that the real death-rates are higher than the 
figures show. 



20 


We have seen that in thus ascertaining approximately 
the amount of the migrations in different directions, we have 
also brought out important facts as to the natural rates of 
increase, approximately, in the different regions; that such 
rate is highest in Florida—25 per cent.—very nearly as 
high in Arkansas, and not much lower in Texas; that it aver¬ 
ages about 17.8 per cent, for the Far South, and diminishes, 
at what seems a reasonable rate of diminution, in North 
Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and the other Border 
States, until we find it to be in the North about 3.7 per 
cent., or perhaps less. 

We can see also why the colored population in the two 
intermediate States, North Carolina and Tennessee, shows 
such a small rate of actual increase; it is between two 
attracting forces, one of which would draw it north and the 
other west, or south and west, while in Virginia and the 
other Border States the attraction towards the north is so 
much stronger than that towards the west that the latter 
has little or no effect. As to the westward movement in the 
more southerly States, it need not surprise us that the 
negroes should share to a considerable extent with the 
whites the tendency to move into new and unsettled land, 
especially if it happens to be a good region for cotton grow¬ 
ing, but it is not apparent why the movement should have 
been so very much greater into Arkansas than into Texas. 

Mr. Gannett, at page 10 of his pamphlet, above cited, 
discusses the “ centre of gravity ” of the negro population, 
and after saying that “ the movements of the centre of 
population are the net resultant of all the movements of 
population,” tells us that as a whole the negro element 
moved in a southwesterly direction a distance of about 
twenty-five miles in the last decade. He gives, in Plate 
VI, an interesting map of the former slave States, showing 
increase and decrease of negro population, and on that 
map he has marked the centres of colored population in 
1880 and 1890—in the latter year a few miles northwest 


21 


of Rome, Ga. This would seem to be an ocular demon¬ 
stration of a southward movement, but, in the first place, 
the author’s map, and (apparently) his calculations, leave 
out of consideration altogether 'the half million of col¬ 
ored population in the North, and its .increase during the 
decade, and, in the second place, the shifting of the centre 
of population towards the southwest does not necessarily 
prove a southward movement. It might equally well 
result from the combined effect of these two causes, (a) 
greater growth of the southernmost negroes in natural 
increase (17.8 per cent, in the Far South against the 
lower rates shown for the more northerly regions), and 
(b) the westward movement , which is abundantly proved 
and is admitted on all hands. In short, while many negroes 
undoubtedly were tempted to seek the new cotton fields in 
the rich lands of Arkansas, we find that they did not make 
the long journey from Maryland or Virginia to get there. 
The farm hand in the border southern States, who was 
discontented and wanted higher wages went to look for 
more profitable employment in Pennsylvania, Ohio, etc. 

In his treatment of the question of “ Geographical Distri¬ 
bution,” I think that Mr. Gannett gives, perhaps, greater 
weight than it deserves to the tendency of the negroes to 
seek low r , moist regions and avoid mountainous country, 
although it may be admitted that the existence of such 
a tendency is sufficiently proved. The negroes were 
in the days of slavery numerous in certain regions, for 
instance, in the low-lying lands along some of the nav¬ 
igable rivers, and generally (though by no means always) 
where the richer lands were, not through their own 
choice, hut because they or their fathers had been taken 
there by their masters. Many parts of the South, not only 
mountain regions, but much of the poorer part of the low¬ 
lands, were very thinly peopled until after the war, the pop¬ 
ulation being not only sparse, but made up mostly of poor 
farmers who could not afford to own slaves; and where the 


22 


negroes were for any reason a very small element in the pop¬ 
ulation, both absolutely and relatively, they have as 
a general thing so remained through the working of 
other than climatic causes. Most of the hilly re¬ 
gion of northern Georgia and western North Caro¬ 
lina is, I think, neither so high nor so cool as to be 
seriously unfavorable to the development of the negro race. 
Much of that region—take it all the year round—is as 
w^arm, or nearly so, as parts of eastern Virginia. That 
accident—or at least causes which have ceased to work, and 
not climate—may often be the explanation of greater or less 
distribution of the colored race is strongly shown by com¬ 
paring eastern Virginia with eastern North Carolina. The 
tidewater region of North Carolina is the hotter of the two, 
and the ground is more low and swampy, and yet in the 
greater part of this country for eighty miles back from the 
coast the whites now preponderate, while in the correspond¬ 
ing region of Virginia the blacks preponderate. It is also 
worth noting, perhaps, as showing that mere southerliness 
of latitude does not settle the question of distribution, that 
in each one of the ten southernmost counties cf Alabama 
the whites preponderate, as they do also in thirteen out of 
the seventeen southernmost counties of Mississippi, although 
in both these States the negro element is a very large one, 
45 and 58 per cent., respectively. Also that of all the 
counties bordering on the Gulf there are only six—one in 
Florida, two in Louisiana, and three in Texas—where 
the negroes outnumber the whites, and that in four of 
these the disproportion was diminishing during the last 
decade. It seems that almost every general statement as 
to the distribution and movement of the colored popula¬ 
tion must be made subject to exceptions. It may be noted, 
also, that the two southernmost counties of Missouri, which 
are between Tennessee and Arkansas in the low-lying re¬ 
gion between the St. Francis and the Mississippi, have, 
together, less than 3 per cent, of colored population. 


23 


In the opening essay, “ Progress of the Nation,” in the 
Eleventh Census (above mentioned, p. 4), there are in¬ 
corporated a number of instructive and, doubtless, very care¬ 
fully prepared maps and tables. One on page lxiii, 
“ Distribution of the Negro Population in Accordance with 
Latitude,” bears directly upon the subject of our enquiry. 
It gives that population in latitude-belts one degree in 
width, and shows that the two most populous—in colored 
population—are the 32°-33° belt and the 33°-34° belt, but 
while that population in the more southerly of those two 
belts increased from 1880 to 1890 only 9.8 per cent., in the 
more northerly belt it increased during the decade 25.8 per 
cent. So that whether we take state lines or parallels of 
latitude as the boundaries, it seems that we cannot prove 
that there is any uniform and unvarying southward move¬ 
ment of the colored population. 

There are, however, some rather restricted regions, 
which are low and moist, and parts of which are not favor¬ 
able to the development of the white race, especially the 
coast of South Carolina and the region lying along both 
sides of the Mississippi from above Memphis to a little be¬ 
low -Baton Rouge, where the negroes not only greatly out¬ 
number the whites at present, but where the growth, or 
movement—or growth and movement—of the populations 
seem to give some reason for predicting that the dispro¬ 
portion will go on increasing. Climatic as well as eco¬ 
nomic considerations in support of such a view may doubt¬ 
less be advanced, but, on the whole, I submit that it has 
not yet been proved that the white race is unable to hold 
its own in at least a great part of both these regions through 
natural increase, or, even if it is not, that it will not be 
assisted to do so by constant reinforcement from the more 
healthy adjoining regions. This is, of course, a problem 
of very great importance, towards the solution of which 
those possessed of the special knowledge may contribute.* 

* Whether it may or not be reasonable to look forward to a 
time when the present very great disproportion between the 


24 


It would seem to follow pretty obviously from the 
statistical results stated above (the greater percentage of 
increase of the white race, see page 8) that, other things 
being equal, those parts of a State where the white popu¬ 
lation preponderates will—as a rule— grow more rapidly 
than those parts where the negroes preponderate. Take,, 
for instance, Virginia, where in 1880 there were 59 coun¬ 
ties in which the white population was in a majority and 
41 counties—in the southeastern part of the State—where 
the opposite condition held. In 1890 those 59 counties 
had increased in total population from 881,357 to 980,927, 
or more than 11 per cent., while the 41 counties had in¬ 
creased from 631,208 to 675,053, only 7 per cent. 

But it will be instructive to take out of these totals the 
populations of the cities. Of the nine cities in Virginia 
which in 1890 had more than 8,000 inhabitants, four 
(Richmond, Manchester, Roanoke and Alexandria), with 
a total population in 1880 of 83,657 (35,454 colored), and 

numbers of the two races in the regions above mentioned will 
disappear from any cause or combination of causes, it is certain 
that that disproportion as it exists now, both in South Carolina 
and along and near the Mississippi, is a fact which presents very 
serious aspects. On and near the Mississippi the censuses show 
in 46 counties (Shelby county, Tenn.—excluding the city of 
Memphis—12 counties in Arkansas, 19 in Mississippi, and 14 in 
Louisiana) a white population of 181,300 in 1880 increasing to 
199,100 in 1890 (9.8 per cent.), and a colored population of 500,809 
increasing to 634,300 (26.6 per cent.). In 16 of these counties— 
Chicot, Desha and Lincoln in Arkansas; East Carroll, Madison, 
Morehouse, Pointe Coupee, Tensas and West Feliciana in Louisi¬ 
ana; and Claiborne, Coahoma, De Soto, Issaquena, Jefferson, 
Sharkey and Tunica in Mississippi, the white population decreased 
during the decade from 44,600 to 40,400 (9.4 per cent.), while the 
colored population increased from 167,900 to 195,200 (16.3 per 
cent.)—the white population falling from 21 per cent, of the whole 
in 1880 to 17 per cent, of the whole in 1890. The other counties 
(besides those above named) which make up the group of 46, are: 
in Arkansas—Ashley, Crittenden, Drew, Jefferson, Lee, Missis¬ 
sippi, Monroe, Phillips and St. Francis; in Louisiana—Caldwell, 
Concordia, East Baton Rouge, East Feliciana, Franklin, Richland, 
West Baton Rouge and West Carroll; in Mississippi—Adams, 


25 


in 1890, of 121,132 (45,556 colored), are in the group 
of 59 counties, and five (Norfolk, Portsmouth, Peters- 
burg, Lynchburg and Danville), with a total population 
in 1880 of 78,497 (38,469 colored), and in 1890 of 100,- 
833 (47,856 colored), are in the group of 41 counties. 
Deducting the figures for the total populations of these 
cities, we find that in rural population (including smaller 
towns) the 59 counties increased during the decade from 
797,700 to 859,795, or at the rate of 7.7 per cent., while 
the 41 counties increased from 552,711 to 574,220, or at 
the rate of 3.9 per cent. 

The white population in the 59 counties increased in 
all 16.8 per cent, (rural 13.4), and in the 41 counties it 
increased in all 13.5 per cent, (rural 10.4). The colored 
population in the 59 counties decreased in all 1.5 per 
cent, (rural 6.1), and in the 41 counties it increased in 
all from about 368,400 to about 376,100, or at the rate 

Bolivar, Holmes, Le Flore, Madison, Quitman, Sunflower, Talla¬ 
hatchie, Warren, Washington, Wilkinson and Yazoo. The total 
area of these 46 counties is about 28,000 square miles. 

Issaquena County, Mississippi, shows a greater relative dispro¬ 
portion than any other county in the South, 736 whites to 11,582 
negroes. The other counties with the next greatest disproportion 
are East Carroll, Madison and Tensas in Louisiana, and Beaufort 
in South Carolina, in all of which the whites are less than one- 
tw’elfth of the total population. The greatest actual preponder¬ 
ance of negroes in any county is shown in Berkeley County, 
South Carolina, where there are 7,661 whites to 47,666 blacks. 

There are in all twenty-nine counties in the entire South in each 
of which the whites formed, in 1890, less than one-fifth of the 
whole population; in South Carolina 3, in Georgia 3, in Florida 1, 
in Alabama 4, in Mississippi 9, in Louisiana 5, in Texas 2, in 
Arkansas 2. In five of these counties the disproportion had 
diminished somewhat during the ten years, and in the remaining 
twenty-four it had increased, often pretty largely. While there 
is, as I shall try to show later, in general a tendency towards a 
diffusion of the colored population from those regions where they 
are numerous—even in a majority—towards other regions 
where they are less numerous, apparently this tendency does not 
generally show itself in those regions where the negroes are in a 
very large majority, say, perhaps, four to one. 




26 


of 2.1 per cent., remaining almost stationary outside of 
the cities. It has been perhaps worth while to go into 
this detail as to the movement of colored population in 
these 41 counties of southeastern Virginia. The condi¬ 
tions there are more favorable than in any other part of 
the border southern States for a large natural increase, 
and doubtless it was considerable—probably it would have 
been more than 28,000 if the colored population had 
neither emigrated nor received accessions from without— 
and yet the actual growth is only as above stated. 

The tendency,—or rather, result, above mentioned, and 
illustrated by the case of Virginia—towards a greater 
growth of those regions where the whites predominate, 
which would show itself hven if the white population were 
not reinforced from without, is doubtless accentuated by 
the fact there is some white immigration from the North 
into that State—and other southern States—which seeks 
by preference those sections where the whites are in a 
majority. It hardly needs to be pointed out that when 
any considerable growth of the white population takes 
place in an average southern county, there is an appre¬ 
ciable tendency of the colored population to move into 
that county from an adjoining less-rapidly-growing or 
stationary region for the sake of more certain employ¬ 
ment, or employment at higher wages. Considerable 
growth in white population thus brings about, as a rule, 
a growth—generally less considerable—in colored popu¬ 
lation. There are, however, many counties in the south¬ 
ern States—constituting, in all, a very extensive region— 
where this rule will not hold, as will be shown later. 

Next, let us take Kentucky in illustration of the ten¬ 
dency to a greater increase in those counties of a State 
where the colored population is relatively the smallest. 
In 1880 there were in that State 54 counties (including 
Knott County since formed out of Letcher) where that 
population was less than 10 per cent., averaging 4.1 per 


27 


cent, of the whole, and 65 counties (including Carlisle 
County since formed out of Ballard) where that population 
was more than 10 per cent., averaging about 20.8 per cent. 
During the decade the group of 54 counties increased from 
568,493 to 669,696, or at the rate of 17.8 per cent., while 
the group of 65 counties increased from 1,080,197 to 
1,188,939, or at the rate of 10 per cent. But if we deduct 
the figures for five cities—with more than 10,000 inhabi¬ 
tants each (in 1890)—we obtain still more striking con¬ 
trasts between these two groups of counties. In the 65 
counties are Louisville, Lexington and Paducah with total 
populations of 148,450 in 1880, and 195,493 in 1890, and 
in the 54 counties are Covington and Newport with 50,153 
in 1880, and 62,289 in 1890. Subtracting the popula¬ 
tions of these cities we find that the growth of the 54 
counties in rural population (including small towns) was 
at the rate of 17.2 per cent., while that of the 65 counties 
was 6.6 per cent. Taking the whole State together, the 
colored population decreased slightly during the decade. 
It increased in the five cities named from 33,187 to 43,828, 
and decreased in the counties outside those cities from 
238,264 to 224,243, or at the rate of 5.9 per cent. Both 
the above groups of counties show a decrease. The 54 
counties, whose area is about 18,750 square miles—the 
whole State containing 40,000 square miles—lie, for the 
most part, in the eastern and southeastern part of the 
State, but some of them are in the north, centre, and west. 

Missouri shows very strikingly the tendency of regions 
where the colored population is very small to increase more 
rapidly than regions in the same State where it is compara¬ 
tively—although not actually—large. In that State there 
were in 1880 57 counties (classing the city of St. Louis 
as a county) in each of which the colored population was 
more than 3 per cent, of the whole, averaging 10 per 
cent., and 58 counties in each of which it was less than 
3 per cent., averaging 1 per cent. The 57 counties (area 



28 


32,310 square miles) had a total population of 1,465,900,. 
and the 58 counties (area 36,420 square miles) had a total 
population of 702,480. The increase in the decade, from 
1880 to 1890, of the 57 counties was 300,984, or at the 
rate of 20.5 per cent., while the increase of the 58 coun¬ 
ties was 209,820, or at the rate of 30 per cent. But to get 
the full force of the contrast we should first eliminate the 
population of the six largest cities, St. Louis, Kansas City, 
St. Joseph, Springfield, Sedalia, and Hannibal. These 
cities, with a total population of about 465,900 in 1880 
(colored population 37,898), and of 685,350 in 1890 (col¬ 
ored population 50,489), are all in the group of 57 coun¬ 
ties. Deducting all of this urban population, we find that 
the 57 counties—now 56, by counting out the city of St. 
Louis—increased during the decade from (almost exactly) 
1,000,000 to 1,081,534, a gain for the rural population 
(that is to say population excluding large cities) of that 
group, of only 8.15 per cent. This very marked differ¬ 
ence in the rate of growth of the two groups of counties is- 
partly, no doubt, to be explained by the fact that the 58 
counties were a more thinly settled region whose cheaper 
lands were an inducement to immigrants, or settlers—and 
the same may be said of the greater growth of one group- 
of counties in Kentucky, over the other group, as above 
detailed—but these greater rates of growth are, I submit,, 
undoubtedly in part due to a choice deliberately made by 
the immigrant of regions where the colored population is 
very small—and because it is very small—over regions 
where it is considerably larger. As to that population 
itself, while it increased in Missouri, as we have seen, in 
the six cities, some 12,600, it diminished in the rest of 
the State, the decrease in the 56 counties (excluding cities) 
being from 99,663 to 91,635. In the 58 counties a very 
insignificant gain is shown (from 7,789 to 8,017), but 
more than all of this is accounted for by rapid growth in 
two counties, Jasper and Butler, where the growth of con- 


29 


siderable towns, or tlie opening of mines, or the starting of 
new industries explains it. Omitting these two counties, 
the rest of this group also shows a loss. This group in¬ 
cludes all the northern tier of counties, the northwest 
corner and most of the southern half of the State, while 
the counties with the larger colored percentage are for the 
most part central or north-central, and along the Mis¬ 
sissippi. 

We have already been brought, indirectly, to the con¬ 
sideration of a most important fact in the matter of the 
present and future distribution of the population by races, 
und that is, that while in the South, as a whole, there is 
a large colored population, there are very extensive regions 
in the South—sometimes contiguous, sometimes scat¬ 
tered, scores of thousands of square miles in all—where 
the percentage of colored population is extremely small. 

A striking illustration of the extreme inequality of the 
distribution of the negro population in the South—a fact 
which is perhaps not generally understood—may be in¬ 
stanced in the case of seven adjacent counties in the north¬ 
ern part of Georgia. While the percentage of colored 
population in the whole State is 47 per cent., in those 
seven counties, taken together/it is only a little more than 
2 per cent. In five of those counties it decreased during 
the last decade, in two it increased, showing, for the seven 
counties, collectively, a very small gain—from 1171 to 
1230, or about 5 per cent., while the white population in¬ 
creased 15 per cent. In those counties, taken together, 
the colored population was only one in two square miles. 
It is possible that in those mountain counties, and in other 
counties in consimili casu in the South, the negro may be 
made to feel that he is not wanted, and that his inclination 
to stay away is thus accentuated.* 

* As this pamphlet was going through the press, a despatch was 
published in some of the newspapers giving an account of a dis¬ 
turbance—an attack on colored laborers—which took place in 


30 


A case nearly as striking is that of nine adjacent coun¬ 
ties in western North Carolina—Clay County and all, ex¬ 
cept Ashe, of those which border upon Tennessee—where, 
taking them all together, the percentage of colored popu¬ 
lation is but 3.G per cent., while in the whole State, to¬ 
gether, they formed 35 per cent, of the whole. The total 
population of these nine counties increased very fast dur¬ 
ing the decade, 33.5 per cent., while the small colored 
population only increased from 2,746 to 3,169. Of this 
small gain probably more than one-half was due to the 
growth of Hot Springs, a much frequented winter-and- 
summer resort in Madison County, so that the normal 
growth of the rural colored population was probably not 
more than 7 or 8 per cent. Its distribution throughout 

Marshall County, Ivy., on November 16, 1896, and the occurrence 
is a striking instance of the hostile attitude which the whites may 
assume towards the negroes in a region where the latter, are very 
few. That county, in the western part of the State, on the Ten¬ 
nessee River, has a small and decreasing colored population—in 
1880, 440 in a total of 9647, and in 1890, 342 in a total of 11.2S7— 
and it is surrounded hy counties in all of which that population 
is much larger both absolutely and relatively. Its largest town 
contains only some 350 inhabitants. The following account of the 
assault is made up from three sources, which agree in substance: 
1st, a telegram which appeared in the Baltimore Herald of Novem¬ 
ber 18th; 2nd, a report in the Paducah Weekly Sun of November 
20th; 3rd, a letter from the editor of another newspaper published 
in that town, which is only some fifteen or twenty miles from the 
scene of the disturbance. In reporting the facts I do not venture 
to express an opinion as to whether this case should or should 
not be regarded as in any way typical. Probably it would be safe 
to say that in the overt act of violence it is exceptional. 

There seems to have been an “ unwritten law ” that no negro 
should reside or work in the northern part of the county. In 
November, just past, “ a contractor for the Standard Oil Company 
employed fourteen colored men [brought in from other localities] 
and put them to work cutting staves at their works ” in that part 
of the county. This sight, so unusual in that neighborhood and 
contrary to its “ unwritten law,” was so offensive to the feelings 
of the white residents that three days afterwards “ a crowd of 
about forty men, armed,” assembled after dark and promptly 
opened fire upon the colored men. None were killed; four (whose 



Ol 

the region mentioned is rather less than one to the square 
mile. 

In those regions of the South where the colored popula¬ 
tion is now very small, there is no tendency towards an 
increase of that population. There are obvious social dis¬ 
advantages attendant upon their very small numbers there 
which discourage and check colored immigration into those 
regions. 

Throughout most of the other parts of the South, 
there is a tendency towards a diffusion of the negro popu¬ 
lation; the members of that race tend somewhat to move 
from the counties where they are most numerous to those 
where they are rather numerous, they even tend somewhat 
to spread into counties where they are rather few, hut 
they avoid those counties where they are already very few 
both absolutely and relatively. 

names are given) were wounded, but not, it seems, “ hurt seri¬ 
ously,” though a reader, judging merely from an enumeration of 
the wounds, might have inferred otherwise. One of the printed 
accounts speaks of “ buckshot,” but my correspondent is careful to 
specify “ bird-shot,” and it seems probable that he was right. 
All were driven away, and thus ended, for them, this stave-cutting 
incident. The Paducah Sun accompanied its account with an edi¬ 
torial vigorously condemning the outrage, and expressing a wish 
that the penitentiary might “ receive a substantial addition to its 
population.” Its report, headed “ Mob Law-Marshall County 
Broke Loose Again,” etc., and written in a spirit which shows no 
sympathy with the assailants, has a local coloring about it—in its 
exhibition of the mental attitude of the residents of that part of 
the adjoining county—which sorely tempts a chronicler to make 
more extended quotations. 

I offer no comment except to call the reader’s attention to the 
following point; namely, that any such hostile demonstrations, 
whether they might or might not be likely to take place in a 
southern county where the colored population is very small, 
would be less likely to occur in a county where such population is 
large. If in that very county that population constituted not 3, 
but 30 per cent, of the total, the white residents would not want 
to drive them away. Very obvious motives of self-interest—if 
none other, the knowledge that driving out so large a proportion 
of the population would depreciate the value of all the lands in 
the county—would as a general thing operate against and fully 
overcome any such desire. 


32 


Their tendency towards a general diffusion is such an 
important fact that perhaps a brief digression—and illus¬ 
tration—on the subject may be excused, although it is not 
strictly within the line of this discussion, which, in con¬ 
sidering the northward movement, will be found to be 
more concerned with those regions—just mentioned in 
italics—which form an exception to the rule, than with 
those which conform to it. 

Alabama furnishes perhaps the best illustration. In 
that State, there is, as statisticians know, a very marked 
and well-defined “ black belt.” In 1880, in 24 (out of 
66) counties—all, except two, contiguous, and extending 
east and west across the State—there was a very large 
preponderance of colored population, while in the rest of 
the State the whites were in a majority. The colored 
population of those 24 counties (about 436,700 in 1880) 
showed in 1890 the very small gain of 4.2 per cent., the 
white population meantime increasing 6.5 per cent., while 
the much smaller colored population of the remaining 
counties (about 163,400 in 1880) showed the very large 
gain of 37.3 per cent., the white population also increas¬ 
ing very rapidly, 34.1 per cent. It is to be supposed that 
the average rate of natural increase among the negroes was 
as high in the “ black belt ” as in the rest of the State, 
and their actual greater increase in the rest of the State, 
their diffusion northwards and southwards—whether into 
the cities of Birmingham and Anniston, or into counties 
which were growing fast in white population, and there¬ 
fore in wealth, and therefore in opportunities for profita¬ 
ble employment and higher wages—is exactly what one 
might expect. The growth of the colored population in 
Alabama as shown by the last census, about 13 per cent., 
is not so large as might have been expected. The explana¬ 
tion is that there was some westward emigration from this 
State. 

This tendency towards a spreading and diffusion of the 
colored population away from those places where it is much 


33 


beyond the average for a whole region into neighboring 
places where it is below such average, is not generally ex¬ 
hibited so distinctly as in the case of Alabama, and there 
are many localities where it is not shown at all, but that 
there is, as a general thing, such a tendency at work, is, 
I believe, true, and an important statistical fact. It is 
sometimes masked by other influences, noticeably in the 
case of the 41 counties in southeastern Virginia, above 
mentioned (page 24). Here the attraction of Richmond, 
Washington, Baltimore and the North has acted as a dis¬ 
turbing influence and has prevented the neighboring coun¬ 
ties in Virginia from receiving their normal share of an 
outflow of colored population from those 41 counties. 

The diffusive movement of the negroes is shown very 
distinctly in Georgia, also, although not so conspicuously 
as in Alabama. In Georgia there were, in 1880, 63 (out 
of 137) counties where they exceeded the whites in num¬ 
bers, their total number in those counties in that year be¬ 
ing 542,200, and during the decade their growth in those 
counties was at the rate of 12.9 per cent., the white popu¬ 
lation of those counties meantime showing almost exactly 
the same rate of increase, namely, 13.4 per cent. But in 
the remaining counties the much smaller colored popula¬ 
tion (182,933 in 1880) increased 35.1 per cent., the large 
white population (487,806 in 1880) increasing 24 per cent. 
In other words there was a considerable movement of both 
whites and negroes from those counties where the colored 
population was relatively most numerous towards the other 
parts of the State, and this movement was rather more 
marked among the blacks than among the whites. In the 
whole State the whites increased during the decade 19.8 
per cent., and the colored population increased 18.4 per 
cent. 

In Texas there are fifteen counties where the blacks 
outnumber the whites—twelve of them adjacent in the 
southeastern part of the State, average latitude 30°—and 



34 


in these the diffusive movement is not shown. In the 
group just mentioned—the area of which is 10,000 square 
miles—the colored population increased during the decade 
at the rate of 18 per cent., which was much faster than 
the rate for the white population. 

We have already seen (ante page 23) that there are 
regions in which the negroes are in a very large majority— 
very far beyond their average distribution in the particu¬ 
lar State—where either their tendency to move out or the 
tendency of the whites to move in is not sufficient to bring 
about any approach towards an average distribution. 
Using again a descriptive term which has acquired some 
popular currency, it may be said that while the ordinary 
“ black belt ” tends usually, but not always, to diffuse itself, 
and thus gives the promise of ultimately disappearing, 
there are some belts of exceeding blackness where this 
tendency and promise are not discoverable, but where, on 
the contrary, the disproportion has been increasing. It 
may be that this state of things is principally owing to 
climate and to a greater power of the negroes to withstand 
malarial influences which are injurious to the whites. If 
it be conceded that the whites are able to increase and mul¬ 
tiply in the more unhealthy regions of the South, it may at 
the same time be true that they live there at some disad¬ 
vantage, at the cost of some loss in health and in ability to 
work, in short, that they compete on unfavorable terms 
with the negroes who may positively flourish under cli¬ 
matic conditions which the whites only manage to endure.* 

* There can be no doubt that in the most unhealthy parts of 
certain regions of the South, the summer climate is such that 
the whites cannot safely expose themselves to it, except by 
exercising every precaution, and at the same time it is impor¬ 
tant to observe that not many miles away from these most 
unhealthy places there may be other places where they are 
able to live with little risk. So it is in the case of the rice 
plantations on and near the South Carolina coast. These their 


35 


And again, the existing condition may be, in a meas¬ 
ure, due to such considerations as this;—that where a popu¬ 
lation is already made up almost exclusively of these three 
•classes: 1st a few wealthy planters, 2d some small farmers, 
negroes, 3d a great number of hired negro laborers, the 
white farmer on a small scale has little desire to move 
into—or to stay in—such a community where he feels 
that he will be out of place and cut off from congenial 
•associations. 

That climate is not the sole cause of the growing pre¬ 
ponderance of the negro population in certain regions 
would seem to be shown by the case of counties imme¬ 
diately adjoining those regions, forming geographically 
part of them, and with apparently the same climate and 
soil, where the white population seems nevertheless more 
than able to hold its own. Take, for instance, these three 
low-lying counties, Arkansas, Ark., and Catahoula and 
Avoyelles, La., which border upon the group of 46 coun¬ 
ties mentioned above in a foot-note on page 24; in all 
three the whites outnumber the negroes and were increas¬ 
ing faster during the last decade. And again, take all the 
riverain counties in Louisiana below East and West Baton 
Rouge, and all the counties lying between them and the 
Gulf—as low a region as can be found, and a hot one as 

owners have for generations felt compelled to desert during 
some six months in the year, but this might be not an absolute, 
only a partial desertion, for there are often in the neighborhood 
healthier spots, with a dry and sandy soil, where the planters could 
live, and whence they could ride or drive over daily, if necessary, 
to their plantations to direct operations, taking care to return 
to their temporary homes to sleep. It is evident that farming 
under such conditions is a difficult and expensive pursuit, and 
that talcing the whole of such a region together , the negroes are at 
an advantage as compared with the whites, for the most malari¬ 
ous and unhealthy places are generally those where the soil 
is the richest. If these are to be more and more surrendered 
to the negroes, the whites can hardly regard their own occu¬ 
pancy of the poorer soil of the neighboring pine-woods regions 
as sufficient compensation. 


36 


well. Throughout this region the white population— 
which in some places outnumbers the negroes and in others 
is outnumbered by them—was increasing somewhat faster 
than the black. 

Without conjecturing further as to the reasons for the 
existence of the exceptional districts where there is a 
very large and increasing preponderance of the negro pop¬ 
ulation, it is enough for present purposes to have pointed 
out the fact of their existence. It is necessary to bear 
them in mind as a qualifying fact when we notice the 
general tendency of a black belt towards a diffusion and 
consequent fading out. Even in so marked a case as that 
of the diffusion of the Alabama black belt, as just shown 
(page 32), it is to be remembered that there is an excepted 
region within that belt—three counties of the largest rela¬ 
tive colored population— where the disproportion between 
the races increased during the decade. 

On a resurvey of the whole field we find, then, 1st, cer¬ 
tain parts of the South where the negroes very greatly 
outnumber the whites and are increasing rapidly, and 
where the disparity in numbers is increasing; 2d, a South— 
the average South—where the negroes are numerous and 
increasing rapidly—though not so fast as the whites— 
and over the greater part of which region they tend to 
diffuse themselves; 3d, a considerable part of the Border 
States where, whether they be numerous or rather few, 
their number increases little, being kept down by emigra¬ 
tion to the North; 4th, an extensive region —mostly in the 
Border States but also partly further south— where they 
are very few and apparently are likely , for a time at least, 
to become still fewer ;*j* 5th, a North, where they are very 

*It is true that on a superficial study of the two last censuses 
it might seem as if the growth of the colored population in West 
Virginia during the last decade is inconsistent with the suggestion 
as to their becoming still fewer in the regions indicated. In 
that State the colored population is smaller relatively than in 


37 


few relatively, but where their numbers are reinforced 
through a not very large but probably steady stream—per¬ 
haps an increasing stream—of immigration from the South. 

Before considering further the case of the fourthly and 
last mentioned region of the South, let us return to the 
subject of the colored migration to the North, which I 
have tried to demonstrate, and let us enquire why the 
colored population moves by preference northwards rather 
than southwards. 

There are some reasons which are obvious enough. 
While on the one hand the social instinct, the desire to 
have many, rather than few, to associate with—and the 
friendly association of the negro may be said to be only 
with those of his own race—would tend to keep him in a 
southern State, the desire for his own advancement leads 
many an individual to cross over into a northern State. 

any other southern State, only 4.3 per cent, of the whole, and 
yet during the decade it increased a little faster relatively than 
did the white population. But this is accounted for by the 
development of coal mines in a few counties in the southern¬ 
most part of the State, which attracted large numbers of negro 
laborers from Virginia. In most of the State the negroes in¬ 
creased much less than the whites. Of course a negro popula¬ 
tion can be drawn to any locality by the establishment there 
of an extensive industry, or by the building up of a city or 
large town, but such cases have nothing to do with the move¬ 
ment of rural population in the average southern agricultural 
county. 

t It is of course hard to say where the line of distinction 
should be drawn between the counties where the negroes are 
rather few and those where they are very few. If only those 
counties where the colored population is less than 3 per cent, 
of the whole are to be included in the latter category, then this 
“ extensive region ” fourthly mentioned would be found to com¬ 
prise counties whose total area is nearly 86,000 square miles, 
of which about 63,000 would be in the Border States. The 
total area of those States is about 185,000 square miles. If all 
counties should be included where the colored population is 
less than 5 per cent, of the whole, this region fourthly men¬ 
tioned would be much larger. 



38 


This advancement may be merely a material one—the 
higher wages which he can get on a northern farm, or still 
more in a northern city, than on a southern farm or in a 
southern city—and this motive alone would account for 
a great part of the northward movement. But the motive 
may be, and no doubt often is, a desire for social advance¬ 
ment, and the more ambitious among them, chafing under 
the many kinds of discriminations against them in the 
South, move into a northern State partly for the sake of 
the somewhat greater degree of social consideration and 
recognition which is accorded, or which they hope will be 
accorded them there. k 

It is no answer to this to say, as most southern people 
would say, that they like the negro, that they understand 
him and get on very well with him, that they are more 
friendly to him than is the average northern employer. 
That may he all true enough in a way, but such expres¬ 
sions, however sincerely uttered, must be taken always 
with the mental reservation, “ so long as he keeps in his 
place,” and that place almost every southerner believes 
to be, if not a menial, yet, necessarily, a lowly and humble 
one, at all events one of marked social inferiority. In 
the North there is a considerable proportion of the people 
whose attitude towards the negro is somewhat different. 
Human nature being what it is, it is inevitable that many 
of the more aggressive, self-reliant and ambitious of the 
race should, under these circumstances, prefer to take their 
chances in a northern State where the struggle for exist¬ 
ence may be more arduous but where the possible reward 
for successful exertion will seem to them to be greater. 

Bor very obvious reasons this northward movement— 
whether in search of higher wages or of greater social 
consideration—shows itself much more in the border south¬ 
ern States than in those further south. Nearness of the 
goal and the small expense in reaching it would alone be- 
reason enough. But, besides, there is this consideration,. 


39 


that the ambitious and self-reliant ones who move north 
are probably, for the most part, those who have some strain 
of white blood in their veins. These are the ones who chafe 
the most under discriminations against them, and, at the 
same time, have most confidence in their ability to make 
their way under changed conditions, and they are to be 
found in much larger proportion in the border southern 
States than further south. 

On the whole it is perhaps surprising that the move¬ 
ment into the northern States was not larger during the 
last decade. In fact it was much less than in the ten years 
from 1870 to 1880. 

Is there any reason to expect the next census to show 
that during this present decade the northward move¬ 
ment is greater than formerly? There is, I think, 
one reason of very considerable weight, and that is the 
recent change made in a number of the northern States 
from a separate-school to a mixed-school system. The 
separate-school system has now nearly disappeared in the 
Horth, and it is, I believe, inevitable that the mixed schools 
must act now and will henceforth act as a powerful mag¬ 
net upon the border-state colored population. This would 
be so quite independently of any desire on the negro's part 
to attend the white people's schools as such. Were there 
no such desire, the movement would take place through 
a preference of adequate to inadequate school facilities. 

In most of the northernmost parts of the border southern 
States the colored children’s schools must necessarily be 
either inadequate or inaccessible, or both, and this no mat¬ 
ter how genuine might be the wish of the community to 
give ample school facilities, for the thinness of the dis¬ 
tribution of the colored population stands fatally in the 
way. By way of a particular instance it will perhaps be 
interesting to the reader to know what provision for the 
education of colored children is made in Marshall County, 
Ky.,where, as we have seen (foot-note, page 29),the colored 


40 


population is small and where the attitude of the whites 
would not appear to be conspicuously friendly. Enquiry 
brings the information that there are two colored schools 
in that county, which, as to the mere numbers of the chil¬ 
dren to be taught, would seem to be quite sufficient; while 
on the other hand, when one remembers that the county 
has an area of 330 square miles, one must feel certain that 
the schools must be quite out of the reach of a considerable 
proportion of those children. As an illustration—on a larger 
scale—of this point, let us take a region composed of the 
following counties which either border upon or are very 
near to Pennsylvania; the northern tier of Maryland—eight 
counties—Frederick, the northernmost in Virginia, and in 
West Virginia the seven counties which border upon Penn¬ 
sylvania, and the following seven besides, Marion, Taylor, 
Mineral, Hampshire, Morgan, Berkeley and Jefferson. 
This makes in all a contiguous region of about 8,820 square 
miles, say nearly as large as Hew Hampshire, with a col¬ 
ored population in 1880 of 47,062,* which in 1890 had 
fallen to 44,930. But of this colored population 8,667 
was found in eleven cities and towns in this region, and the 
remaining, or rural, colored population would be only 
36,263, or little more than 4 to the square mile. It is too 
plain for argument that many a colored parent in a large 
part of this region must be in a state of chronic discontent 
with inadequate school facilities, as contrasted with the good 
facilities just across the border, and it seems reasonable to 
believe that some of them are tempted to make the very 
short journey into Pennsylvania—or Ohio, which adjoins 
part of this region—where schools, in their distribution and 
appointments, are on such a scale as a population of 60, 80, 
or 100 to the square mile can afford, t 

*1,325 is allowed for the estimated colored population of the 
part of Baltimore County which, between 1880 and 1890, was 
annexed to Baltimore City—the total population of that annexed 
district being probably about 25,000. 

fit might be suggested that West Virginia, by itself, with its 
colored population of only 1% to the square mile, would furnish 


41 


As the colored population of the northernmost parts of 
the southern States drifts northwardly across the border, 
its place will be in part, but probably not fully, supplied 
by negroes drawn—by the inducement of higher wages— 
from a little further south, for instance, from eastern Vir¬ 
ginia where they are still found in such large numbers ab¬ 
solutely and relatively. The feeling and condition of un¬ 
rest, which will always be most acute along the northern 
border, will thus tend to diffuse itself and spread, though 
in a less degree, to the regions next nearest on the south, 
but throughout most of those regions where the negroes 
now form a very large element of the population the north¬ 
ward movement thus caused will be little felt for many 
jears to come. 

And now, returning to the state of things in the South 
wdiieh we have already examined, statistically—the exist¬ 
ence there of very large areas where the colored popula¬ 
tion is almost non-existent—is that condition likely to con¬ 
tinue indefinitely? 

I think there is good reason—based upon utilitarian 
•considerations—for predicting that in some of the southern 
States there will be a change of conditions. 

In West Virginia we find, in 33 counties (there are 54 
•counties in the State), that the negroes are only 5,693 in 
all in a total population, for those counties, of 426,400, 
that is to say, they constitute but about 1J per cent, of 
the population, and their average distribution in those 
counties is thus only 173 to the county, which, in fact, 
would be about 1 in 2-J square miles. Leaving out the 
city of Wheeling, the distribution is 1 in 3 square miles. 
Obviously it is quite impossible that adequate school facil¬ 
ities can be supplied for this extremely sparse colored pop¬ 
ulation. But next, will it not almost necessarily follow 

a more obvious and a stronger case in point than the region which 
has just been instanced, but the close proximity of this border 
region to Pennsylvania—and (as to part of it) to Ohio—makes it 
peculiarly suitable in illustration of the tendency above discussed. 


42 


that the white taxpayers will before long get tired of rais¬ 
ing the funds for even inadequate schools and teaching 
for such a mere handful of the population? Will it not 
seem to them a most unprofitable expenditure of their 
money? And when they have come to take this view, 
will they not, in many of these counties, soon adopt one 
or the other of these two courses, either refuse schooling 
altogether to the colored children, or else admit them to 
the white children’s schools? And can there be much 
doubt that the second and not the first of these two courses 
will be the one which will in fact be adopted? Does it 
not seem altogether probable that in the end utilitarian— 
economic—considerations will in this matter prevail even 
against the enormous influence of sentiment and pride of 
race? 

If the prediction above hazarded be a reasonable one, 
is it not also reasonable to predict that if this step is taken 
in some thirty or more counties in West Virginia, it will— 
not so many years afterwards—-be followed throughout 
that State, unless, perhaps, in the cities? 

And again, simultaneously with this movement in West 
Virginia, is it not probable that a similar movement will 
take place in Missouri? In that State, in a majority of 
the counties taken together (61 out of 115, area 37,850 
square miles, or 55 per cent, of the area of the State), the 
colored population is extremely small both relatively and 
absolutely, is but 8,624 in a total of 952,300, or less than 
1 per cent, of the whole, a much smaller percentage than 
in many of the northern States. (In Hew Jersey the 
colored population is 3^ per cent, and in Kansas 3^ per 
cent, of the whole.) Their distribution, in those 61 coun¬ 
ties, is, on an average, but 141 to the county, or less than 
1 in 4 square miles.* 

*It is of course quite possible, indeed probable, that the willing¬ 
ness of the people in any county in a southern State to admit 
colored children to the schools, will be in some measure deter- 


And next, is it not reasonable to suppose that before 
many years a changed condition, such as has been indi¬ 
cated above, may begin in parts of 3£entucky, the State 
where the colored population is next smallest relatively 
to the whole, and where there are a good many counties 
in which that population is very small both relatively and 
absolutely? And will not such a step be taken also in 
detached counties in still other States? 

But limiting our view for the present to the change 
which it seems reasonable to expect in West Virginia and 
Missouri, it seems almost certain that if it takes place in 
those two States—either generally, or in large parts of 
them—there will be an appreciable acceleration and 
spread of the northward movement of the colored popu¬ 
lation, which movement may then have as its goal not 
only, the northern States but also the northernmost parts 
of the southern States. Hitherto the larger part of West 
Virginia and the larger part of Missouri have been among 
the regions which offered the least attractions to the negro 
of the South, inasmuch as there he could neither have the 
society of the members of his own race, nor enjoy the edu¬ 
cational—or perhaps other social—advantages which the 

mined by a consideration of the nearness or remoteness of any 
large black population which such a course might tend to attract 
into such county. To take an extreme instance, the residents of 
the northernmost counties in the “ Panhandle ” of West Virginia 
would feel certain that the establishment of mixed schools there 
could have such a tendency only in quite an inappreciable degree, 
inasmuch as the nearest large colored population is about 200 
miles distant. Similarly as to any county in the northwest 
corner of Missouri. On the other hand, the people of Cullman 
and Winston Counties, Alabama—where now the colored popula¬ 
tion is almost nothing at all—would regard as a very serious 
matter the possibility of a large influx of negroes who might be 
drawn to those counties after the adoption of such a course. 

It seems probable that the hostility so recently manifested in 
Marshall County, Ky., (foot-note, page 29) against incoming 
negroes may be in part explained by the fear that any such 
accessions to the population, if permanent, would entail upon the 
taxpayers the expense of additional colored schools. 


44 


northern States offered, or seemed to him to offer. 
Under changed conditions an appreciable proportion of 
the colored population of Virginia, which now moves by 
preference northwardly into Maryland, or into Pennsyl¬ 
vania, or some other northern State, would probably move 
into West Virginia, and probably an appreciable propor¬ 
tion of the colored population of Arkansas—possibly of 
Mississippi—would be drawn northwardly into Missouri. 
If there were any very large increase of such population 
in the northernmost parts of the southern States it might 
afterwards make itself felt, to some extent, by a further 
northward drift into the northern States. 

In the southern States (excluding Texas) there are, in 
all, 159 counties with less than 3 per cent, of colored 
population, as follows: in Maryland 1 county, in Virginia 
3, West Virginia 33, North Carolina 2,* Georgia 5, Flor¬ 
ida 1, Alabama 2, Arkansas 18, Tennessee 7, Kentucky 26, 
Missouri 61, the total area of these counties being about 
86,000 square miles, as already mentioned. Their aggre¬ 
gate population is 2,043,700, the colored population being 
but 22,284, or a very little more than 1 per cent, of the 
whole. It is to be noted that as a rule these are rapidly 
growing counties. It is altogether probable that by the 
year 1900 there will be a good many more than this num¬ 
ber of counties showing less than 3 per cent, each—and 
averaging one per cent, or less—of colored population. In 
Texas there are 109 such counties whose area is somewhere 
about 117,000 square miles.' In many of those counties 
in Texas the total population is extremely small, and in 
some it is likely to remain so. 

Attention has already been called to the point that a 
colored population can be drawn to any locality by the 
establishment there of an extensive industry, coal-mining, 
for example, or by the building up of a city or large town. 

* Three other counties in North Carolina come barely above the 
given percentage. 



45 


One or other of those things has taken place in some few 
of the counties included in the summary just given, and 
has caused an increase of colored population where other¬ 
wise, had the county remained a purely agricultural one, 
such population would probably have remained stationary, 
or perhaps decreased. For instance, in the very rapidly 
growing county of Jasper, Missouri, included in the 61 
counties mentioned above, where extensive mines have 
been developed and two considerable towns have grown 
up, there has been a material increase in the colored popu¬ 
lation—although less in proportion than the white in¬ 
crease—during the last decade.* 

It may, perhaps, be suggested that instead of giving 
the number, the area, and the population of those coun¬ 
ties in the South where the negroes are relatively fewest, 
I ought to have selected those counties where they are 
absolutely fewest,—that I might with advantage and consist- 

* A striking case may be instanced—of rapid growth, through 
industrial causes, of colored population in a southern county 
where before it was very small both absolutely and relatively— 
in Butler County, Mo. (bordering on Arkansas), where a colored 
population in 1880 of 140 in a total of 6,011 increased to 596 in 
1890 in a total of 10,164, and has greatly increased since 
then. The growth shown by the census was so exceptional 
in a county containing no large town and surrounded, as this 
was, by counties with a population almost entirely white, that 
it seemed to need explanation. Enquiry brought the informa¬ 
tion that extensive industries had been started in the county— 
a very large saw-mill in one town, a stave and heading factory, 
and a cooperage establishment in another—employing in all 
many hundreds of negro laborers. “ It is now estimated,” 
writes my informant, “ that we have a colored population of 
about 1,800 at least. We have one colored colony in this 
county, farmers who own their own lands.” I mention this 
case in particular because it is so exceptional, and yet in itself 
it does not seem a surprising fact that extensive industries 
should be so started in a place so situated—that is to say, not 
very far from a region (in this case the river counties of 
Arkansas) where there is a large negro population to be drawn 
upon as laborers—with the intention, and effect, of attracting 
that class of labor. It is rather surprising that this thing has 
thus far happened so seldom. 


46 


ently with the line of reasoning pursued, have selected all 
those counties, for instance, where the colored population 
is less than 1 to the square mile. But a little reflection 
will, I submit, show that relative paucity of that popula¬ 
tion is a more important criterion—in the matter of move¬ 
ment and growth—than absolute paucity. For—to say 
nothing of the many newly organized and very thinly 
settled counties of Texas where absolute paucity of any 
class of population proves nothing at all—the indetermi¬ 
nateness of absolute paucity as a criterion may be seen by 
examining the case of such counties as Charlton, or Col¬ 
quitt, in southern Georgia, Pearl River, in southern Mis¬ 
sissippi, or Poinsett, in eastern Arkansas. In all four of 
these thinly settled counties the colored population, which 
is relatively quite considerable, is less than 1 to the square 
mile, but all of them are growing rapidly, all border upon 
other counties where the negro element is large, and it is 
quite safe to predict that each one of them will show, when 
the next census is taken, a marked increase of colored 
population, indeed very probably the percentage of such 
increase will be larger than the percentage of increase of 
white population. In other words, relative paucity—in 
most parts of the South and under existing conditions—is 
a more permanent thing than absolute paucity. 

In the “ Opening Essay,” which I have mentioned 
above (page 4), the authors say: “It appears prob¬ 
able that this southward movement will continue in 
the future as industries increase in the border States , and 
the foreign element of our population, following in the 
wake of these industries , gradually crowds the negro ele¬ 
ment out of these States The italics are mine. 

.With great respect, surely this is an erroneous view. 
The foreign element has seldom, if ever, crowded out the 
negro although it often—nay, generally—happens that 
the negro element keeps out the foreigner. The foreign 


47 


element is comparatively small in most of the border 
southern States. Take Virginia, where it forms hut little 
more than 1 per cent, of the population, lx is most 
numerous in Richmond, Norfolk, and Newport News, and 
in all three places the negroes have increased rapidly. So 
have they in Louisville, where is nearly half of the for¬ 
eign-born population of Kentucky, although they decrease 
in the rest of the State. The establishment of industries 
to which either native or foreign whites—it matters not 
which—are drawn as operatives, does not repel but attracts 
negro labor, as is conspicuously shown in the case of Bir¬ 
mingham, Ala. There is scarcely a trace of any foreign 
element in those counties of eastern Virginia where the 
colored population grows so slowly, and whence it moves 
to the North where the foreigner abounds. But whether 
he goes north or south, the negro moves whither he is 
dr awn , not driven . 

It must seem, I think, pretty plain, from an investiga¬ 
tion of the rates of increase of the colored population, 
steadily diminishing from 25 per cent, in Florida to some¬ 
where about 3 per cent., perhaps less, in the North, that 
the low' rate in the northern States is not due merely to 
that population being there, so much of it, urban, and be¬ 
ing, when rural, so scattered. The cause must be also in 
large part climatic, and, if so, it seems safe to anticipate 
that even with an increasing stream of immigration from 
the South the race will never become relatively numerous 
in the northern States. There is, however, one part of 
that region which has been in these pages classed as “ the 
North,” that is to say, the Pacific States, and especially a 
good part of California, also parts of the territories of 
Oklahoma, New Mexico and Arizona, where the climatic 
conditions would seem to be quite favorable. The west¬ 
ward migration has not yet—except for small beginnings— 
extended so far west as the Pacific slope, but it seems rea¬ 
sonable to expect that it will do so, especially in view of 


48 

increased demands for labor which the Chinese Exclusion 
Acts (1884 and later) have tended to bring about. Dur¬ 
ing the last decade the colored population of the three 
Pacific States and the two last named Territories increased 
from 8,000 to 17,400, but those figures are, of course, not 
large enough to serve as a basis for any confident predic¬ 
tions on the subject. 

For the convenience of the reader there follows a table 
giving the total population (and the constituent elements 
of that population) in the last two census years, of the 
United States, the North, the South, and the separate 
southern States, including with them the District of Co¬ 
lumbia. Also the rates of increase of both white and col¬ 
ored population during the decade, and the percentages of 
colored to total population by the last census. 


Negroes, or of African descent, t See note, next page. % Decrease. 


49 


3 

O 

05 

c4 


<1 




< 5. 

p 


X 

p 

(A 


-l 


H 

r A 

- s - 

3 

*-4 


V* 

k-4 


W 

O 

3 

0 

O 

> 

> 

H 


CD 

P 

P 

CD 

w 

p 

t4 

P 

O 

•1 

C+ 

P 

35* 

Oft 

0 

rt 

OD 

CZ> 

t— *• 

GO 

P 

>-s 

<< 

0 

P 

>-4. 

GO 

>--• 

CD 

P 

C4 

—J 

TD 

O 

** 

0 

h*» 

Pi 

GO 

r4 

• 

O 

2- 

ST 

>r 

p 

p 

1 —< 

P 

o - 

p 

-p- 

CD 

CO 

P* 

CD 

53 

OD 

rg\ 

O 

O 

H 

GO 

p 
—* 

P 

CD 

►—. 

p 

• 

• 

• 

• 

P 

»-4i 

p 

GO 

3 

0 

r~* 

O 

CD 

CD 

P 

O 

P 

-s 

O 

>-<• 

• 

• 

• 

r 

p 

a 

• 

• 

P 

P 

• 

• 

?r 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

O 

O 

*— 1 

CD 

• 

A 

P 

GO 

• 

p 

• 

• 

*-* 

r4 

cr 


p 


c4 

CD 

P- 


□ P 
p p 


0 

a 

cr 


c n 

c4 

P 

rt* 

CD 

OJ 


• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

p 

• 

• 

• 

• 

0 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 




• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 


• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

41 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 




















u—t 

X 

ox 






1—• 


—• 

JO 

■—» 




l— 





—4 

X 

k—k 

0 



05 

Ox 

Ox 

bx 

to 

CO 

_l 




05 

bx 

JO 

—4 

k—k 

X 

lo 

05 

4k 

k—k 

k— 

c 

— 

—* 


4- 

to 

to 

05 

X 

X 

X 

4— 

4k 


-1 

4- 

0 

05 

X 

►1 

ox 

X 

r4 

00 

JO 


10 

s 

OX 

s 

•to 

• 

X 

s 

•# 

4- 

to 

-* 

X 

-# 

JO 

-• 

to 

• 

-I 

05 

JO 

10 

4k 

0 

OX 

* 

B 

P 

4^ 

‘ci 

—4 

CO 

OX 

— 1 

CO 

OX 

to 

to 

05 

— 

4k 

05 

05 

ox 

ox 

to 

X 

*1 

• 

*“* 

Ox 

05 

4— 

OX 

- \ 

ox 

X 

to 

4k. 

4k 

to 

X 

to 

JO 

0 

JO 

0 

a- 

X 

X 


O 


OX 

to 

to 

—1 

0 

0 

—4 

X 

05 

0 

0 

X 

4- 

X 

OX 

OX 

X 

ox 

X 























*C 


















10 

4k 

X 


c 



JO 

k—k 

k—k 

>—• 

JO 

b—» 

«—* 

k—k 

k—k 

w—* 




1 — 

4-1 

10 

0 

JO 



-4 

05 

JO 

-4 

u— 

b: 

05 

JO 

0 

k—k 

X 

QO 

X 

JO 

k—k 

k— 

Ox 

4k 


05 

X 

p 

05 

wX 

CO 

05 

ox 



X 


—» 

ox 

X 

to 

X 

05 

JO 

1—» 

4k 

-1 

JO 

to 


JO 

Ox 

ox 

• l 

k—» 


to 

to 

JO 

X 

X 

•4 

k—‘ 

0 

X 

X 

X 

X 

4k 

JO 

0 

0 

-1 

■to 

bx 

OX 


to 

t—k 

05 

X 

bx 

05 

CO 

4k 

X 

4k 

"t— 

0 

k—k 

0 

JO 


p 

to 

(X 

JO 

—— 

4k. 

4^ 

X 

0 

C*pl 

X 

X 

OX 

JO 

to 

to 

-> 

k—k 

05 

X 

Ox 


• 

4k. 

0 

CO 

X 

to 

—4 

4*“ 

0 


-4 

ox 

X 

JO 

JO 

X 

to 


X 


O 





















k—k 

X 

4k 



k—k 

•— - 



JO 




k— 







JO 

0 

X 

Ox 

X 

k—k 

1—k 

X 

X 

0 

4k 

-4 

4k 

X 

X 

1—4 


H-k 

Ox 

05 

Ox 

X 

4^ 

to 

X 

to 

X 

to 

05 

10 


JO 

Ox 

kl 


4k 

— 

JO 


— * 

-1 

JO 

O 

JO 

0 


X 



JO 

to 

4- 

4k 

j-4 

05 

JO 

X 

p 


JO 

X 

4k 

JO 

o« 

8 

Is 

X 

0— 

JO 

X 

X 

05 

CO 

"t— 

"to 

05 

O 


OX 


lo 

—4 

to 

X 

X 

0 

4k 

10 

to 

to 

Ox 



O 


g 

X 

s 

Ox 

4-* 

-4 

-l 

X 

kj 

•— 

OX 

10 

05 

X 

X 

4k 

to 

Oi 

Ox 

05 


X 

-4 

O 


















w— 

X 

Ox 

>— 

k—k 



k—» 

JO 




k—k 







Ox 

to 

4k 

b 

kf 

S 

4k 

b 

Ox 

Ox 

X 

Ox 

bx 

to 

JO 

k—k 

k—k 

X 

83 

Ox 

4 

to 

10 

4k 

05 

Ox 

JO 

4k 

10 

Ox 

to 

k J 

JO 

Ox 

4 - 


4k 


X 

p 

ox 

05 

JO 

Ox 

X 

Ok 

05 

X 

0 

X 

4^ 

4k 

O 

X 

X 

to 

X 

— 

b 

w* 

0 

X 

4k 

X 

4k 

X 

4k 

X 

to 

b 

b 

-1 

-4 

% 

bx 

X 

JO 

05 

X 


X 

Ox 

Ox 

to 

to 


OX 

4k 

to 

05 

O* 


X 


JO 

Ox 


X 

JO 

X 

k— 

ws* 

Ox 

JO 

kl 

to 

Ox 

05 

10 

X 


X 

0 


GO 

QO 

O 


00 


^ 05 CO 

JO CO co 
O* ‘ X 


4k C5 

o o 


ox k—* 
CO 4k 
— ox 


05 JO 

ox — 
o o 


4k JO -I 
GO -1 JO 
X —* Ox 


—* JO 05 

JO Ox JO o 
05 CO 05 O O 


GO C. CO 
X — QC 
05 05 4k 


— CO 
Ox CO 
‘ JO 


JO CO 
-1 Ox 
-5 o 


JO JO 

•O' x 

— o 


C5 ■*-. k— 1 
ox o» CO 
Ox —* X 


05C^*^05t— 

to to ►*- 05 o 

O 05 JO 05 CO 


05 

•0 

o 


JO 

Ox 

CO 


4k 

00 


Cl 

4- 

O 


05 


OC 

o 


-1 

to 

CO 


c ^ ^ 


05 ^ w -i w ci i: cc w co 05 

CO CO GO CO CC 05 ot 4- — O* 05 0» 05 -1 JO ® -l 

io c« cc o a m o io ci n cc cc a ci cd o co 


05 


I—* 05 CO O — Cl 05 - 


tO CO •*! -1 CO 


co — ox co ►—i 4*. 


O QO 


CC Cl Cl O ►! - 00 -1 GO 


CC-4CD^O-IWHC10JC05^ 


CO 

to 


05 


QO 

OO 

to 


CJT 

JO 


Cl 

QO 

O 


CO 

QC 

QO 




4^ 

-I 

O 


o 

4- 

O 


co 


QO 


•—» CO ‘ JO JO to CO »—‘ »—* CO JO 

CO tO JO —! 4*- CO O O JO CO 05 4^* tO JO 10 

4» — CD »-J O - 4* CC © *•! O QO JC 05 CD 


-1 

s 

4k 

4- 

iC 


05 

4- 


Ox 

—I 

QO 


-1 

JO 


o 

JO 

o 


4^- 4- 

JO JO i- 1 
-10-4 


o o 

CO -4 


4- 4- 


JO 

JO 

to 

k—k 

k—* 

JO 

k—k 

X 

X 

to 

* 

05 

—i 

Ox 

X 

05 

to 

4k 

to 

0 

X 

to 

JO 4k 

k—* 


ox 

05 

0 

O' 


10 

•— 

X 

Ox k—k 

0 

0 

4^ 

05 


05 

CO 


1 


CO 

00 

o 


3 

P 


c+ 

CD 


a 

o 


o 

CD 

a 


CO 

to 

o 


P 

S^C 

a 3 2 

£ ® s 

Pi 


M^MMWlOfc-MJCu-o,WMCOM 
CiCi-lCD — CiW4^JOCltO«^'-‘C5CDCi 


JO CC (X 4* m -1 


05 


-4 OX GO SI 4-> 05 4k tO 


JO 

CO 


05 


JO 

•1 


to 


JO 

05 


-1 


JO 

05 


JO 


CO 05 


05 

CO 


k—k k—k I—k M W 10 4- k—k 

4- Ol 05 4^ W Cl ^i CD - 05 •'l 05 W 


05 05 JO 05 C5 tO ^ lO CD 05 -1 M 


CO 


JO 

o 


CO 


05 


=r 


c+ 

'D 


o 

O 


a 

Pj£ tT'p 

fags 5 

0344 

g<* <D 
Q. ^ _ 

CD J+co P 

* Ef® ** 

cd 


* 


CO JO JO Cl 05 CJxJOOx*—*4^4^00^—*J0 4^ 

4k CD ^ 4k tO 4— Cl —4 O O 4k- 05 JO JO 05 —4 4* 


05 4^ CO 4^ tO -4 05 05 -4 


4^* -4 OX tO QO 4*. QO 


X 


k—k 

0 

k—* 

k—k 

•■4 

4k 

CO 


0*0 

O 'D 


H _ 
SoO„ 

» **© © 

. as 





































































































50 


Note .—(See preceding page). The. Indians here included are 
“ Civilized Indians ” (58,806 as enumerated in the last general 
census), and do not include those living in the Indian Terri¬ 
tory (51,729) or elsewhere on Reservations (138,168). All of 
those on Reservations except about 400 are in the northern 
States or in the Territories. There are also living in the Indian 
Territory or on the Reservations, 117,368 whites and 18,636 
negroes, but these and the Indians among whom they live, are 
not part of the “ constitutional ” population, and are not enum¬ 
erated in the general census. A special census of all such per¬ 
sons, and also of the inhabitants of Alaska (32,052, principally 
Indians), was taken in 1890, but all of those so specially enum¬ 
erated are, as a rule, ignored in statements of the total popula¬ 
tion of the United States, which is generally given, officially, as 
62,622,250, as in the above table. 

In some of the tables of the censuses all except the whites are 
included under the head “ colored.” The total number of Chinese, 
Japanese and Indians in. the South is so insignificant that one 
might adopt such classification without disadvantage, were it not 
for the fact that in the North their number is very much larger, 
bcth absolutely and relatively. In view of this fact it has 
seemed better to give their combined number in a separate 
column. 

Note— In Volume IV of the “ Quarterly Publications of the 
American Statistical Association ” (Boston, 1895) there is an 
article by Mr. Henry Gannett: “ Was the Count of Population 
in 1890 Reasonably Correct? ” The author gives reasons for 
thinking that there was an under-enumeration of children under 
10 years of age. He says: “ This evidence appears to indicate 
a shortage among the negro children amounting to perhaps a 
quarter of a million. The shortage among the native white 
children is by no means as great proportionately, but may 
amount numerically to about the same.” 

No attempt is made by the author to show, even conjecturally. 
in what parts of the country this supposed under-enumeration 
of both or either of the races occurred, and the statistician, there¬ 
fore, would probably not be justified in making any allowances 
for it, but ought rather to take the official figures as he finds them. 
It may be said, however, that any failure by a census-taker to 
enumerate colored persons would be more likely to occur in 
places where they were many than in places where they were 
few. In the latter case the fact that one or more colored families 
were living in a neighborhood would be a rather notorious fact, 
which would very likely be brought to the census-taker’s atten¬ 
tion. So far, then, as the above discussion has dealt with 
those regions where the colored race is very thinly distributed, 
it would seem that we need hardly concern ourselves with the 
possibility that there was some slight under-enumeration. 


P D 6 ft 















































,0 c 

\ y<> 



l- * » I 1 V V 


t/> ,^v 

V-* * •> : ‘-"" *> 





V. 







, ©3 r 0 v* „ % 'V 

' •> 

/> A v ^ j ? *W/- % 'If- a * 
















'■-# r* 


if* 


* . a* 

aV ,/> 

% ‘»v. * V,- 

A> 

=>0 X 








*7^ -A> K < yV^ y. v V. ^ yrT^ 1 *V 




$ * * * o A ^ . 81 " y s s » 

a* + ^ *, *V> v ,* 

































,0- ^ Y * 0 /■ \> n s 













<y o N c ^ 




c o '- 

-> O*^ - ■* I 









c* l. A o.* 

\ o 



o° AJA ^ 















V>* \ 






















- A ^ , %. .. „ * .** 

)08SS ESOS. 

RARY BINDING 





AUGUSTINE 


?a FLA - 

m z 20Q * 

Z/T?>Z * . ^ A 


' rnil « -A <A 

<\. ' o, >a A 








































